Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a problem

Steven M Jones <smj@crash.com> Thu, 28 January 2021 03:20 UTC

Return-Path: <smj@crash.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AC983A1182 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 19:20:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=crash.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QPCVVU0jFJnK for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 19:20:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from segv.crash.com (segv.crash.com [IPv6:2001:470:1:1e9::4415]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB4463A117F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 19:20:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shiny.crash.com (192-184-141-33.static.sonic.net [192.184.141.33]) (authenticated bits=0) by segv.crash.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/cci-colo-1.7) with ESMTPSA id 10S3K7oL090566 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 03:20:15 GMT (envelope-from smj@crash.com)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 segv.crash.com 10S3K7oL090566
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=crash.com; s=201506-2k; t=1611804016; bh=MCHioXpxY+ovH8FMZKHT9+KvjLeXACKHrLI9UdllUjM=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=VBPy9x9ad5PFMzvlkczYU/tWaAhsXSkzXTqWLZB0BnLbsIG7JHViwI1dMxMfdd8r3 GxC6fgHRHLdFtVD3TEGXjVUfDUh4fuO6mahF4+iM+zbWc44uWbN3j+CkImdwANZBr8 oF57G9G4vkALXHHNTw7lizjGscZKSl+XFLwyJCqHzKb5m9qe+kVxDIQzSVRwd7a63b 41ReU7u3B1fdPF9YiNtMv1r0GD7qXcF6RofW5rHvX4H3ucHsbXJKkkNBkPa/JgBOlL LFR2fJwjOwoIWfK004CdyJAuGqSV2E3J2YiWnRYAiUoMkjo69k/mv5O1i3eIW0+03a G9YNwK42JTTKw==
X-Authentication-Warning: segv.crash.com: Host 192-184-141-33.static.sonic.net [192.184.141.33] claimed to be shiny.crash.com
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <CAL0qLwY5BbwvS9XXqBk=Mp074ntN=NeS97pJAxPBdQEZAsgohg@mail.gmail.com> <20210127203714.007C86CDB9CA@ary.qy> <CAL0qLwbN+HkGfvw79rPPvqL6jWWAsUtWY9X1gW=vAvoeQS8RHg@mail.gmail.com> <526bf4d5-5a7d-5a91-b965-36ffeab933f7@taugh.com>
From: Steven M Jones <smj@crash.com>
Message-ID: <183c0bc7-48e1-52c1-2a19-cd74fe8e4521@crash.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 19:20:07 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <526bf4d5-5a7d-5a91-b965-36ffeab933f7@taugh.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (segv.crash.com [72.52.75.15]); Thu, 28 Jan 2021 03:20:15 +0000 (UTC)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Z-QgppNXDZ375lXGII8w1itBeDs>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a problem
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 03:20:17 -0000

On 1/27/21 19:08, John R Levine wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>> I still don't understand why failure reports about messages that
>>> happen to be failure reports are in any way special.
>>
>> Loop detection in RFC 5321 is a normative MUST because of the obvious
>> operational problems it creates.  Maybe I'm being thick, but right now I
>> don't see how this is different, apart from the fact that each
>> message is
>> distinct; ...
>
> Here's perhaps another way to look at it.
>
> ...
>
> B) Someone slaps me upside the head and I fix my SPF record so my
> reports are sent correctly.
>
> This does not strike me as a hard problem.


It's not a hard problem. I see the last sentence in Section 3.3 as
reserving the right to deliver that slap...

--S.